Simplifying Scripture

Adonis Vidu (Atonement, Law, and Justice) focuses much of his attention on the import that the “doctrine” of divine simplicity holds for our understanding of atonement. He denies that simplicity is a philosophical imposition on Scripture, but rather a rule of reading Scripture that preserves the unity of the Bible and the witness of Scripture to the Creator-creature distinction.

At the same time, though, Vidu gives fuel to the critics of simplicity with statements like the following. He claims that at the cross “God is not moved from wrath to mercy. Both the concept of simplicity and the concept of divine immutability have very clear implications for this notion,” and then raises a biblicist objection:

“doesn’t Paul write that ‘we were God’s enemies’ (Rom. 5:10) and ‘under a curse’ (Gal. 3:10)? Isn’t God propitiated, or appeased by what Christ does? Well, this is precisely the kind of language that the rule of simplicity would have prevented. It is a gross caricature to think of God in these terms. . . . The language of the Bible must be interpreted with due attention to the ontological difference between God and humanity. God is quite simply not the kind of being that is moved emotionally in that kind of way.”

I assume that he doesn’t mean that Paul is guilty of a “gross caricature.” Even so, this is precisely why many object to simplicity – more precisely, to certain formulations of simplicity. It raises the concern that simplicity arises from an unevangelized metaphysics.

Here’s a rule of thumb: Any rule of simplicity that puts the Bible’s own language and claims under suspicion is badly formulated and deployed.